thelinuxlink.net

http://thepage.time.com/long-voting-lines-in-atlanta/

This is just shameful. Voting should not be this way in the richest most powerful nation on earth. This is 3rd world kind of stuff.

greggh wrote:http://thepage.time.com/long-voting-lines-in-atlanta/

This is just shameful.

Aren't people supposed to vote in a democracy ?

greggh wrote: Voting should not be this way in the richest

http://www.aneki.com/richest.html

greggh wrote: most powerful nation on earth. This is 3rd world kind of stuff.

China versus USA

ken_fallon wrote:

greggh wrote:http://thepage.time.com/long-voting-lines-in-atlanta/

This is just shameful.

Aren't people supposed to vote in a democracy ?

What's your point? That response makes no sense, unless of course, if you are trying to intentionally twist what my post is about.

Its only because people decide to vote at the same time. The polling stations have been open for a week or so in some states.

greggh wrote:

ken_fallon wrote:

greggh wrote:http://thepage.time.com/long-voting-lines-in-atlanta/

This is just shameful.

Aren't people supposed to vote in a democracy ?

What's your point? That response makes no sense, unless of course, if you are trying to intentionally twist what my post is about.

You said it is shameful that people are waiting 10 hours in a line to vote but you didn't state why you found it shameful. It's couldn't be waiting in line part as that seems to be a regular occurrence. So it must be shameful that people are willing to stand in line to exercise their democratic right to chose the next president. This opinion is strengthened by your reference to "This is 3rd world kind of stuff." which seems to belittle the effort made by many voters who endure hardships to make sure their voice is heard.

Or did i miss your point ?

ken_fallon wrote:You said it is shameful that people are waiting 10 hours in a line to vote but you didn't state why you found it shameful. It's couldn't be waiting in line part as that seems to be a regular occurrence. So it must be shameful that people are willing to stand in line to exercise their democratic right to chose the next president. This opinion is strengthened by your reference to "This is 3rd world kind of stuff." which seems to belittle the effort made by many voters who endure hardships to make sure their voice is heard.

Or did i miss your point ?

I don't think you missed my point. I think you are pretending to miss my point.

I think what Greggh is saying, despite those two links is:

1) richest: I dunno but a $14,000,000,000,000 GDP is pretty big. Add in that California, in and of itself is the 6th largest economy in the world. Here is a quick lesson: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/11/quick-quiz.html. Let's see some of those other 'rich' countries spread that out over 305 million people and 3.5 sq. miles of land and be a nuclear power with a busy space program, a military presence that covers 6 continents, and the most competitive economy on earth. If California decided to break rank and declare war on Equatorial Guinea, my money would be on California.

2) as for the China-USA military comparison: do they have planes that are invisible to radar? Do they have satellites that have mapped the planet with strategic targets? Do they have subs that, from undersea, can launch missiles across a continent? The world is a better place because cooler heads prevailed and we did not nuke China back to the Stone Age during Korea (as MacArthur recommended) nor Vietnam (as Nixon implored) and we stuck with 'traditional' warfare when dealing with Iraq. Say what you will but no nation can support the worldwide logistics of supplying their military like the US can; the US has the ability to feed, arm, and refuel her military worldwide. No other nation can; at least without the US military finding out about it.

With all this power and might, it would seem that voting should be more streamlined, yes, so 10 hours in line to vote is ridiculous. However, I don't know of a better way and if I have to wait in line to vote, so be it, I am not going to complain. After all, at least we can vote.

greggh wrote:I don't think you missed my point. I think you are pretending to miss my point.

No seriously I'm not getting the point here at all. They are voluntarily waiting at the polls correct ? The election isn't until the 4th . What wasn't covered is why they are waiting so early. Is this the first time this has happened ? If so why ?

Brian wrote:I think what Greggh is saying, despite those two links is:

1) richest: I dunno but a $14,000,000,000,000 GDP is pretty big. Add in that California, in and of itself is the 6th largest economy in the world. Here is a quick lesson: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/11/quick-quiz.html. Let's see some of those other 'rich' countries spread that out over 305 million people and 3.5 sq. miles of land and be a nuclear power with a busy space program, a military presence that covers 6 continents, and the most competitive economy on earth. If California decided to break rank and declare war on Equatorial Guinea, my money would be on California.

2) as for the China-USA military comparison: do they have planes that are invisible to radar? Do they have satellites that have mapped the planet with strategic targets? Do they have subs that, from undersea, can launch missiles across a continent? The world is a better place because cooler heads prevailed and we did not nuke China back to the Stone Age during Korea (as MacArthur recommended) nor Vietnam (as Nixon implored) and we stuck with 'traditional' warfare when dealing with Iraq. Say what you will but no nation can support the worldwide logistics of supplying their military like the US can; the US has the ability to feed, arm, and refuel her military worldwide. No other nation can; at least without the US military finding out about it.

I disagree that the measure of a countries greatness is that of it's military.

Brian wrote: With all this power and might, it would seem that voting should be more streamlined, yes, so 10 hours in line to vote is ridiculous. However, I don't know of a better way and if I have to wait in line to vote, so be it, I am not going to complain. After all, at least we can vote.

On this I agree but can you tell what's going on that's different to other elections. How long are the polls normally opened ? Why is it taking so long to vote ?

Polls are open usually 7 am to 8 pm. In 2004, I had to wait about 15 minutes to vote. In '00, it was less. I don't recall having to wait long in 88, 92, and 96. In non-presidential years, it's usually less than 5 minutes to park, sign in, vote, and get back in the car.

Sometimes the polls will stay open later but I don't who makes that decision. Strangely, when I hear cases of this happening, it almost always favors the Democratic candidate, be it locally or nationally.

Brian wrote:Sometimes the polls will stay open later but I don't who makes that decision. Strangely, when I hear cases of this happening, it almost always favors the Democratic candidate, be it locally or nationally.

Yeah, it's almost always those higher income white neighborhoods more likely to vote republican, and not the lower income more minority neighborhoods more likely to vote democratic that usually have the long voting lines with people being turned away, being denied their right to vote.

greggh wrote:

Brian wrote:Sometimes the polls will stay open later but I don't who makes that decision. Strangely, when I hear cases of this happening, it almost always favors the Democratic candidate, be it locally or nationally.

Yeah, it's almost always those higher income white neighborhoods more likely to vote republican, and not the lower income more minority neighborhoods more likely to vote democratic that usually have the long voting lines with people being turned away, being denied their right to vote.

I think that you should have to have a certain income to be able to vote. If you can't bring in atleast 25K a year than you shouldn't be allowed to vote infact, you should be taken out into a field and shot down without prejudice into a very large trench and then have dirt pushed on top of you and nice flowers planted to make a garden.

MattKingUSA wrote:

greggh wrote:

Brian wrote:Sometimes the polls will stay open later but I don't who makes that decision. Strangely, when I hear cases of this happening, it almost always favors the Democratic candidate, be it locally or nationally.

Yeah, it's almost always those higher income white neighborhoods more likely to vote republican, and not the lower income more minority neighborhoods more likely to vote democratic that usually have the long voting lines with people being turned away, being denied their right to vote.

I think that you should have to have a certain income to be able to vote. If you can't bring in atleast 25K a year than you shouldn't be allowed to vote infact, you should be taken out into a field and shot down without prejudice into a very large trench and then have dirt pushed on top of you and nice flowers planted to make a garden.

A convenient way to eliminate poverty. But who would pay for the nice flowers?

Yeah, it's almost always those higher income white neighborhoods more likely to vote republican, and not the lower income more minority neighborhoods more likely to vote democratic that usually have the long voting lines with people being turned away, being denied their right to vote

Item 1: Guess you're unfamiliar with New England - lots of wealthy whites and overwhelmingly liberal Democrat. Same goes for many areas of California, suburban DC, many Philly suburbs too.

Item 2: In an age where you can sue for spilling hot coffee on yourself, being denied the right to vote should bring much more furor than it does which tells me either 1) it's not as big a problem as one might think or 2) the people who've been denied are apathetic and don't really care.

Brian wrote:

Yeah, it's almost always those higher income white neighborhoods more likely to vote republican, and not the lower income more minority neighborhoods more likely to vote democratic that usually have the long voting lines with people being turned away, being denied their right to vote

Item 1: Guess you're unfamiliar with New England - lots of wealthy whites and overwhelmingly liberal Deomocrat. Same goes for many areas of California, suburban DC, many Philly suburbs too.

Item 2: In an age where you can sue for spilling hot coffee on yourself, being denied the right to vote should bring much more furor than it does which tells me either 1) it's not as big a problem as one might think or 2) the people who've been denied are apathetic and don't really care.

'

No, they're just appealing to their senators to sue for them. Mwahaha, lazy bums. Give me health care...waaa. I'm a big baby...